I'm a multiple-time entrepreneur, living and working in the heart of Silicon Valley for the past quarter century. Currently, I spend most of my time working on a new startup in the online education arena. I've got a BA in political science and an MBA from Stanford. Having been around technology and business on the leading edge, I write mostly about what's new and what's coming for companies and the country. You can find me on Facebook, Twitter and Google+ You can e-mail me at forbes_at_rogodotnet

Hyperloop: The High Cost, And Long Journey, Of California's Rail Project

It seemed like a throwaway when on the last day of May, Tesla Motors CEO started riffing on his idea for the Hyperloop, a new kind of mass transit that he claimed would cost only one tenth as much as the proposed California high speed rail project set to begin construction any day now. Given that the state’s plan has a price tag of $68 billion and only about $12 billion in secured funding, Musk’s claim couldn’t help but get some attention. When he further explained that Hyperloop trips would take just 30 minutes, instead of the 2 hours and 40 minutes on the proposed trains, people naturally got more excited. Of course, they were once excited about the rail plan, too.

Off the rails?

When California voters approved Proposition 1A in 2008, they allocated nearly $10 billion of an estimated $45 billion to build a train from San Francisco to Los Angeles. It wasn’t long after that the economy was in free fall, the project cost had more than doubled and support for the project headed south as well. The entity in charge of the project has been fighting ever since to tighten the budget, make the construction plan more politically palatable, and fend off lawsuits from every direction.

The revised plan it cobbled together barely squeaked through the state legislature. With a promised completion date of 2029, the plan calls for improvements in the urban rail corridors around San Francisco and Los Angeles to be completed long before those areas are connected to the high speed lines. In the San Francisco area, that means electrification of the commuter rail system Caltrain by the end of the decade, which will allow for the tracks to carry more trains (electric trains start faster than diesels and so can run more often) — a necessary change if Caltrain rights of way are to be shared with the high speed trains.

But it also means construction begins in the state’s Central Valley, specifically between the cities of Madera and Fresno. It’s a 30-mile segment of the 520-mile system and critics have dubbed it the “train to nowhere.” The assessment is both fair and unfair. On the one hand, it’s not possible to build a meaningful high speed link of any great distance overnight. On the other hand, by selecting a cost-effective segment in an economically challenged area, the rail authority gained political points by creating construction jobs in the right place and sidestepped long-term questions about where the remaining funds will come from. The authority hopes to complete the section from Merced all the way into the San Fernando Valley, just outside Los Angeles, by 2022. At the moment, it’s $20 billion from knowing precisely how it’s going to fulfill that dream.

Politics and problems

Critics like to point out that rail in California is a pipe-dream and solves a problem the state doesn’t have: Getting from north to south. But whether rail is the answer, long-term trends suggest that continued growth in travel between the two major west-coast cities needs better alternatives. While it’s still possible to complete the drive south in 6 hours if one manages to skirt all the traffic trouble spots, the likelihood of doing so has fallen a great deal over the past quarter century. Bottlenecks arise at key choke points leaving San Francisco and entering Los Angeles, turning 6 hours into 8 at too many times during the day.

While choosing rail over the auto might only make sense for those visiting the downtown areas or being picked up, even a small reduction in automobile trips would meaningfully improve travel times for those still reliant on cars. The rail authority is quick to cite data from Spain and France showing those marginal improvements after the introduction of high speed rail, but is even more aggressive in touting reductions in air travel. And it’s here where California’s plan could end up seeming farsighted.

Anyone who has flown into San Francisco on a foggy day knows that airport capacity there can easily be cut down by fairly routine weather. The attendant delays can turn a short trip north or south into an all-day affair. But even when things are in perfect alignment, air travel within the state isn’t what it once was. The flights are typically scheduled for 1:15 to 1:20, but the need to arrive for security means your travel time is already above 2 hours. Then there is the fact that neither SFO nor LAX is located anywhere near the heart of the city it serves. The train, by contrast will travel from Union Station in Los Angeles to the bustling South of Market area in San Francisco. Suddenly, its proposed travel time of 2:40 seems very competitive with air travel.

The cost might be even more so. While excursion fares between the cities are still as low as $59 each way with significant advanced purchase, the chances of getting a last-minute ticket for less than $199 each way are a bit of an anachronism. The rail authority posits that average fares might run 83% of the cost of air travel, but it also runs scenarios assuming it will sell tickets for half the price of flying. That latter assumption seems more plausible given the reduced competition in air travel and could lead to higher ridership totals.

Musk wasn’t happy with the California plan: “The high-speed rail that’s been proposed will be the slowest bullet train in the world and the most expensive, and it’s a little depressing,” he said, echoing the sentiments of many that live here. But while he isn’t quite correct about the speed — at 220-mile-per-hour speeds, the California train will generally run as fast as France’s TGV, for example — he’s right that the proposed train breaks no new technical ground. And it’s breathtakingly expensive, with minimal proven funding at this point.

Still it represents a bold vision for diversifying the state’s transportation infrastructure and travel choices. If, that is, it can ever get on track.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.